Insurance Companies taking money from elderly person - help!

Ksw3

In the industry I used to work in, we needed to amend our letters for those who were over 85. It didn't meant different options etc it was just the wordings of our letter that were different. 

Puddings

Thanks so much for all the help and advice, i will follow/ look into it all.

As an update, this latest company responded to my email really quickly confirming a full refund within 3-5 days (which has happened) and, after requesting, have deleted her contact details and added her to a 'do not call' list. 

Thanks again! 

tightauldgit

DullGreyGuy said:

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Brie said:

So gran is competent in the medical sense but not competent financially.  That she's 97 and never dealt with finances makes her a vulnerable customer and the companies should be treating her as such.  

You are not allowed to assume someone is vulnerable simply because they are old, that's age discrimination. 

Although financial services are exempt from age discrimination laws I believe - what that specifically means in practice I have no real idea. 

Why do you think that?

Discrimination is not the same as differentiation. We can charge a 95 year old driver more than a 60 year old driver as we can statistically prove they have more claims. Thats not discimination and so doesnt need an exemption. Likewise you can decline a 35 year mortgage to a 100 year old applicant because statistically there is 0% chance of them surviving the term. 


Secondly, these are service plans she has been buying which arent Financial Services products.

As far as I can see financial services have a blanket exemption from age discrimination legislation in the Equality Act but as I said I haven't actually looked into what that that means in practice. 

Are you meaning Part 5 20(A)? Its not a blanket exemption, its simply says you can use age as part of risk assessment as long as you have data to back it up. That doesnt allow them to advertise jobs in their call centres for the over 45s only etc. 

It strictly shouldnt be necessary as a carveout as evidence backed differentiation isnt discrimination in most cases anyway.

Sorry for resurrecting this but just curious - the way I read it 20A is a blanket exemption for any activity in the financial service sector

20A.—(1) A person (A) does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to age discrimination, by doing anything in connection with the provision of a financial service.

And then the next part (2) basically says IF you are relying on that as part of a risk assessment then you have to have reliable relevant data to back it up. Which to me suggests if you are doing anything other than a risk assessment then section 1 applies without the need for relevant reliable data.

Now on the face of it that actually makes no sense, but appears to be what the law says.